Does the Constitution protect the right to abortion?

<p>
[quote]
yes ONCE the egg is fertilized... sperm in and of itself never will... an egg in and of itself never... once the two come together, they make a life/baby/fetus...and then, and only then does it have potential to have self control.. so sperm or egg, no - baby/fetus, yes!

[/quote]

All you're saying is that the circumstances need to be right (ie sperm and egg need to come together) in order for the sperm/egg to develop into a human. that's no different from a fertilized egg, which has just as little potential to become a full human life without a uterus. a fertilized egg in and of itself has just as little potential.</p>

<p>so what DO you think of the morning-after pill?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and how do you know it becomes human right at or after birth.. is there a reason why you believe this?

[/quote]

uhh...I don't believe that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
besides all the declaration of independence has to say on the issue... Amendment XIV section 1 : "deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property.."

[/quote]

funny how that has nothing to do with murder in general since it clearly specifies state-initiated killing. even if we consider the fetus to be a full human life, the constitution simply says that a state can't force an abortion, which can be justified without considering the fetus as human anyway. point is - the constitution says nothing about murder, nor does it say anything about abortion specifically. I would argue it implies both protection against murder and the right to an abortion.</p>

<p>
[quote]

then why havent i've heard about any CC'ers protesting against the laws that make the murder of a pregnant woman count as two murders?it doesnt matter if you dont agree with it, they counted the baby/fetus as a citizen then, what makes an abortion any different?

[/quote]

abortion isn't any different.
why doesn't it matter if I disagree?....I believe, if I disagree with those laws(which I do), your point would be moot (which it is).</p>

<p>"a pregant woman is never out of options...there is always other options...keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption... not wanting your baby doesnt automatically make you desperate."</p>

<p>Haha, for reason I imagine you as Ali G saying that, like the "there is always other options" part. Hahaha.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm curious congrasfelope, are you male or female?</p>

<p>"a pregant woman is never out of options...there is always other options...keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption... not wanting your baby doesnt automatically make you desperate."</p>

<p>Abortion is the alternative to pregnancy. Adoption is the alternative to parenthood.</p>

<p>LadyinRed: "^100% agreed! 4th Amendment!"</p>

<p>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Amendment IV</p>

<p>THAT's a stretch.</p>

<p>not really...
The Supreme Court drew the right to privacy from the 4th Amendment. Right to abortion is an issue of privacy.
:|</p>

<p>juliusmonkey im a girl....so any thoughts of yours to say that i 'just dont understand' and that im being sexist are out the window lol. and "Haha, for reason I imagine you as Ali G saying that, like the "there is always other options" part. Hahaha."??? lol i guess i have no idea whatsoever who Ali G is.</p>

<p>scarlet, isnt suicide the alternative to living? isnt murder the alternative living with someone? just because they're there, doesnt make it right...</p>

<p>my quote "and how do you know it becomes human right at or after birth.. is there a reason why you believe this?" wasnt directed towards you...if you havent noticed, you're not the only one on the prochoice side on here ladyinred. and i agree with comparanza..it is a stretch...and if it isnt, why cant murder of family members or extreme cruelty to animals be personal matter ... or statutory rape - sex is a private matter right? so what makes it wrong, if privacy's the issue...just because its private matter, doesnt make it right...</p>

<p>I'm pointing out the <em>true definition</em> of the alternative- it really peeves me when people say adoption is an alternative to abortion. It's not. The two are completely different. I would agree suicide is the alternative to living, well more correctly death.</p>

<p>Um...of course the Constitution protects my right to kill babies.</p>

<p>Um... you seem to fail to understand a number of things we have already discussed. Read the thread before making yet another inflamatory ignorant statement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
my quote "and how do you know it becomes human right at or after birth.. is there a reason why you believe this?" wasnt directed towards you...if you havent noticed, you're not the only one on the prochoice side on here ladyinred.

[/quote]

I know, and I think that's a good thing.
I would suggest being clear about whom you are directing a comment to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
it is a stretch...and if it isnt, why cant murder of family members or extreme cruelty to animals be personal matter ... or statutory rape - sex is a private matter right? so what makes it wrong, if privacy's the issue...just because its private matter, doesnt make it right...

[/quote]

THe private sphere ends when an action violates another's rights. extreme cruelty to animals should therefore be a personal matter.
Murder of family members violates clear, distinct human rights and should be regulated by the government. The justification for gov't intervention in statutory rape (though I personally haven't formed much of an opinion on the issue), then, is that a child does not have the full capacity to consent to sex, so sexual intercourse would be a violation of the child's liberty because the act isn't consentual.</p>

<p>ladyinred - and i would think that if you're going to bother to post you would read everyone's post...therefore you would know who made the comment that i was replying to and you wouldnt assume that everything i said was being said to you</p>

<p>so let me get this straight - you dont think people should be prosecuted for cruelty to animals? they can do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want? and no matter what, its a personal matter so they cant get in trouble? do you really believe this? anyways, as i have yet to find something that clearly states that a baby/fetus isnt a citizen, and isnt a human, and therefore doesnt have rights... wouldnt an abortion infringe on the baby's/fetus's rights? cause you have yet to prove that the gov't says a baby only becomes a citizen and has rights when its born... and so i'd think itd have rights.. and even if somewhere it says it doesnt, does it become a public matter, if the father is against the abortion and the mother is destroying his 'property'?</p>

<p>I think I'll refrain from making the bold and rather egotistical assumption that the entirety of the above post was addressed to me. Forgive me for my ignorance.</p>

<p>well in this case you're more than welcome to...you see the "ladyinred" at the beginning of the post was directed towards you...funny how that works huh? and as for the second paragraph, yea, well you did say "extreme cruelty to animals should therefore be a personal matter." so that too was for you. so feel more than free to tell me you're views...i anxiously await their arrival!!!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, it's not if you are willing to call this a life, you can also call sperm living as well. They also can't help being created.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if sperm is life, i think i've committed genocide.</p>

<p>i think the overriding issue at hand here is the role of women in society and sexual and gender equality. think about it this way - through the various ways that men (myself one of them) have used to subjugate and disempower women throughout history, the suppression of the feminine entity (both as female and as a feminine social entity) in a sexual sense has been the most pervasive and perhaps most successful of these methods. we can see this in mainstream, patriarchial society's stand against pornography, which is one of the few venues in which the feminine as a sexual entity (and thus as an equal partner in a power relationship with a masculine entity) is allowed to express itself.</p>

<p>that might seem a bit tangential, but here's where it ties in - the ultimate control of patriarchial power structures in society is embodied in both the power to create and destroy life. if we look, the masculine gender entity has clear control over the power to TAKE life, in the form of the military-industrial complex (read: the military restricts the role of women, bans homosexuals, and most of the high level positions in corporate america are taken, statistically speaking, by men). the obvious counterpart to the power to take life is the power to make it - ultimately, society gives nearly limitless power to men to apply contraceptive measures, the most pervasive of which being condoms. of course, these contraceptive measures find their counterparts in methods women also have to prevent the creation of life, such as female condoms and the pill, but ultimately, in a scenario where all else fails, the masculine entity still has the power to walk away in a manner in which the woman, who is responsible for childbirth, does not.</p>

<p>which is why i believe that abortion is more fairy characterized as a women's rights issue than as a "life" issue. is a fetus a living being? for the purposes of this discussion, i have no clue. whose rights are more important, those of an ethically ambiguous "life" (or perhaps non-life, depending on where you stand) or the mother? once again, i really don't know. but here's a clear cut answer i do know - does society's insistence that women are forced to bear a greater cost for a mistake made mutually by a man and a woman further reentrench gender and sexual domination in society on a very basic and fundamental level? yes.</p>

<p>remember, i'm nto saying anything about abortion as an ethical or unethical choice. but from a pragmatic perspective, i strongly believe that leaving the DISCRETION to get an abortion in the hands of the woman is a fundamental step toward breaking down the dominant power structures perpetuating inequality in society today. for those people who believe that women's rights are important but also believe that abortions are unethical, i think a much better strategy is to pursue education campaigns and awareness-raising drives to convince people to make what you believe is the right choice, not to ban abortion altogether.</p>

<p>but then again, i might be totally wrong, cuz i'm just</p>

<p>half_baked</p>

<p>edit - this post is best read while listening to "brick" by ben folds</p>

<p>That was very eloquently stated half_baked</p>

<p>while i agree on some points, some of your points i have to disagree with. you're saying, basically, that a woman should have complete control on the decision...but what happens if the father wants the baby to live, and the mother chooses an abortion. isnt the mother infringing on that man's rights to that baby...it is because of his sperm that the baby exists after all, and is therefore entitled to decisions about his child's life. what do you propose we do about those situations?</p>

<p>second, you cant just call this a women's rights issue. it affects another life (yes a fetus is a life...you dont have to believe its human, but how is it not a living thing???). if it was solely her life...than itd just be her rights. but its not...and you cant only call it women's rights, until you prove that the baby/fetus has no rights that are being affected (which i may point out, has yet to be proved on this board or elsewhere...) yes its her body, but it was also her choice to have sex - and the baby was a result. now she has to take care of that baby. if someone drinks and drives and seriously injures someone, you deal with the consequences... pay for the medical bills, etc...you just dont kill that person to take care of the problem. so you cant just kill the baby/fetus to take care of the problem.</p>

<p>dont get me wrong - im impressed at the amount of responsibility you take for this issue as a guy. but may i point out, that the people who are most in agreement with your arguments are the probably the same people who if you were arguing the other side of the issue would probably tell you to shut up cause your a guy and you just dont understand. so i would like to know whats with the twofaced side of people...if they're for your cause, you cheer for the guys...if they're for the opposition, you discredit their claims???</p>

<p>once again you never have to agree with what i say. theyre my opinions, and like yours, they'll never change. im just tired of people claiming that its unfair to women that they cant get an abortion. what gives you the right to take another's life? you sound just like the people who say they got in trouble for a crime cause of their race...and then if they get punished they claim the people are prejudice against them, and if they were the same as them it never wouldve happened and its just so unfair. you do the crime, you do the punishment. you have sex, you get pregnant, you have the baby. if men had babies i'd still be against abortion...its not a matter of being a girl or a guy - its a matter of it being wrong, and taking someone's life. and thats all i have to say about that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you're saying, basically, that a woman should have complete control on the decision...but what happens if the father wants the baby to live, and the mother chooses an abortion. isnt the mother infringing on that man's rights to that baby...it is because of his sperm that the baby exists after all, and is therefore entitled to decisions about his child's life. what do you propose we do about those situations?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this is an unfortunate situation that falls into the ambiguity of this abortion issue, but i my stance on this and my proposition, i think, will still be more favorable than the status quo even in light of this. first, remember that my proposition is that the government and politically motivated groups allow abortion in all cases, but encourage people not to by having things like TV ads talking about why they believe that its a bad idea, etc. for instance, in a world in which my proposition is implemented, the government could do things like subsidize foster care centers, reduce the barriers to adoption so that children spend less time in orphanages, and start an education campaign that emphasizes the value of life over the feelings of ownership towards a child. i think that it is this feeling of ownership that leads people to abortion over adoption today - if society were to massively reevaluate what it means to "own" an emotion or to "own up to" a responsibility, we could fundamentally rethink the way we deal with emotions such as guilt that come up in these situations. here's the bottom line - i don't think that people get abortions because they're irresponsible. on the contrary, though this is counterintuitive, i think that many people get abortions because they feel that it is the more responsible thing to do. leaving a child at the mercy of the world can be seen to some, such as myself, as being an irresponsible choice - better to end the potential for life (if a first-trimester fetus can be called that) than to guarantee that a life will definitely come to be and be of a lesser quality than it should have been.</p>

<p>in addition, remember that the fact that man wants the baby, in my view, is exactly what makes this a woman's rights issue. refer to my second long paragraph above - the power of men in sociey to create and destroy life is what perpetuates the dominance of men and inequality in society. think of this as a scale; no one really knows if a baby is a life or not (scientifically speaking, you can justify both), so you don't really know how much morality to weigh there. however, you know for a fact that letting a man decide what a woman does with her body (whether its an abortion or not) perpetuates a very fundamental form of domination. let me put it this way - if a woman wanted to have a child but the father wanted her to have an abortion, wouldn't you agree that it should be the mother's choice?</p>

<p>
[quote]
second, you cant just call this a women's rights issue. it affects another life (yes a fetus is a life...you dont have to believe its human, but how is it not a living thing???). if it was solely her life...than itd just be her rights. but its not...and you cant only call it women's rights, until you prove that the baby/fetus has no rights that are being affected (which i may point out, has yet to be proved on this board or elsewhere...) yes its her body, but it was also her choice to have sex - and the baby was a result. now she has to take care of that baby. if someone drinks and drives and seriously injures someone, you deal with the consequences... pay for the medical bills, etc...you just dont kill that person to take care of the problem. so you cant just kill the baby/fetus to take care of the problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>first, refer to my paragraph directly above - on a scale, as an objective decision maker, this should be a woman's rights issue. on one hand you have a probablistic scenario to judge on (is a first-trimester fetus a life, and if so, to what extent), whereas on the other hand you have a very definite and tangible consequence. second, weigh consequences here - remember, in a world in which my proposition is implemented, every woman would have the ABILITY to get an abortion, but very few would. this means that there would only be relatively few abortions per year, but woman would effectively gain a voice in gender politics in a way in which they never have before.</p>

<p>third, as far as the woman bearing responsibility because it was her choice to have sex, i answered this too. remember that men have always had the power to avoid an unwanted baby - they can just walk away. abortion is the factor that equalizes the scales in terms of sexual and social power. if an unwanted pregnancy is a mutal responsibility, there should be ways for both of the people to just not deal with it if they don't want to. not doing so results in the subjugation of women.</p>

<p>think about it - most abortions don't happen in family situations. they are performed on single, unwed mothers who have no husband figure to speak of. in addition, statistically speaking, unwanted pregnancies have dropped by 70% in the last 30 years. this is a direct result of abortions, and not any of the abstinence-before-marriage campaigns that we've seen in the last few decades (which, statistically speaking, have failed spectacularly - polls show that more americans have sex before marriage than ever before).</p>

<p>
[quote]
dont get me wrong - im impressed at the amount of responsibility you take for this issue as a guy. but may i point out, that the people who are most in agreement with your arguments are the probably the same people who if you were arguing the other side of the issue would probably tell you to shut up cause your a guy and you just dont understand. so i would like to know whats with the twofaced side of people...if they're for your cause, you cheer for the guys...if they're for the opposition, you discredit their claims???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>it's very disappointing that society at large believes that, as a guy, i shouldn't be concerned about this issue. assuming that i should share the view of the mainstream masculine gender stereotype is exactly the kind of mentality that perpetuates gender/sexual inequality. think of it this way - saying that its surprising that i acknowledge the abuses of power by masculinity is essentially the same thing as someone saying that they're surprised that a woman was actually willing to stand up for herself or do anything with her life other than be a housewife. i consider myself a feminist. people find this odd because, as a heterosexual male, they expect me to be both an advocate of masculinity and a heterocentrist. i'm neither; i'm an advocate of gender equality, which subsumes both women's and gay rights. i consider myself to be what Antonio Gromsci calls an organic intellectual.</p>

<p>
[quote]
once again you never have to agree with what i say. theyre my opinions, and like yours, they'll never change. im just tired of people claiming that its unfair to women that they cant get an abortion. what gives you the right to take another's life? you sound just like the people who say they got in trouble for a crime cause of their race...and then if they get punished they claim the people are prejudice against them, and if they were the same as them it never wouldve happened and its just so unfair. you do the crime, you do the punishment. you have sex, you get pregnant, you have the baby. if men had babies i'd still be against abortion...its not a matter of being a girl or a guy - its a matter of it being wrong, and taking someone's life. and thats all i have to say about that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>let me pose the question to you this way - do you think abortions would happen in a society in which women weren't ostracized for having children out of wedlock? the answer is probably, but not nearly as much as it happens today. so i think that your arguments about blaming social conditions for situations like abortion is fundamentally flawed (both in the instance of gender and in the instance of race, but that's another discussion). i think that its gender inequality that makes abortion as prevalent as it is today. the reason why men are far less pro-abortion than women is because, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, they dont' suffer nearly as many social consequences as women do.</p>

<p>sex in society is an inevitable issue. the purpose of policymakers in society (and us, as the new generation of activists and politicians) is not to oppose ideas on principle but to look for effective, pragmatic solutions. there is no point crying over the spilled milk that is premartial sex; we need to look for an effective solution to the systemic problem of unwanted pregnancy.</p>

<p>and for the record, i have some very unconventional reservations about abortion that i'd be happy to elaborate on if asked (unconventional because they're not rooted in the concept of life or in religion).</p>

<p>
[quote]
and for the record, i have some very unconventional reservations about abortion that i'd be happy to elaborate on if asked (unconventional because they're not rooted in the concept of life or in religion).

[/quote]

Just to satisfy my curiosity (and because you write very well) what are your reservations?</p>

<p>i too am interested in your reservations lol so feel free to share!</p>

<p>you have excellent points when it comes to women's rights- but we cant just base the legality of this issue on if its women's or men's rights... we have to take into account the baby/fetus...you cant possibly make this decision until you do decide when it becomes human, and when it has rights...because if it's proven to be a conception (im not saying it necessarily is, but if it were at conception...) you're killing another american person. and it doesnt matter what your rights are then - you are taking away someone else's rights. so as much as we all would love it to be a matter of a fundamental right of women, that isnt the case - we <em>have</em> to take the baby/fetus into account</p>